debateorg_all_debatesfandomcom-20200213-history
The Government Should Not Fund The Arts
The Government Should Not Fund The Arts - 10/15/2007 (https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Government-Should-Not-Fund-The-Arts/1/) Instigator: Phil (Pro) Contender: nypuller (Con) Round 1 Phil: "The US Government, or any government for that matter, should not be in the business of funding the art industry. For the same reason the government shouldn't fund gas companies or stock brokers, artists should have to prove their worth in the marketplace. Professional artists choose their job like the rest of us (unless you live in a socialistic country). Artists know exactly what the salary and risk is before they choose their profession. The government should not take someone else's hard earned money and give it to someone just because they're an artist." nypuller: "I strongly believe that arts have the right to be funded by the government. The main reason that the government began funding the arts (which the idea of creative funding started back the United States constitution itself) is because, it is meant to allow artists to retain the materials necessary to perform their creative tasks that they have undertaken. The government states that creativity is important and essential to a well formed society and allows other parts of the brain (which would otherwise go unused) to be accessed. Also the amounts of money that these artists are paid are very miniscule and more times then not they are "supported" by a tax deduction rather than an actual physical income. The argument stands that if science can be funded to further help mankind in advancing ourselves to understand about our body's, chemical reactions, the solar system etc. Then why can't art be funded to advance ourselves with the use of our creativity and the good our creativity can bring to this world." Round 2 Phil: "Hello nypuller, and thanks for accepting my challenge to debate this topic. Let me start by saying I don't agree with your premise that we should even be funding science. There is a clear economic market for both science and art. If you want to be an artist, then you should take that risk just like the millions of entrepreneurs in the country who have to save their money, start a business, and often times go years without being cash-flow positive. We all love pizza, and I hear tomatoes are good for the brain, but again, it's not the US government's role to fund the arts, just like it shouldn't be funding pizza restaurants. If your art is in demand, then people, schools, and other organizations will purchase it. If you create something that nobody wants, then you won't sell it. The problem with government funding, is that all of the garbage gets the same type of funding as the good stuff. The only means to determine art-in-demand, is to let the free-markets decide. We all have to take risks in the marketplace. Artists and scientists should not be exempt from this rule just because of some philosophical point of view. After all, why should I be FORCED to pay you for your art creations? That's my hard earned money, not yours." nypuller: nypuller forfeited this round.